Scientists have identified 50
individuals who are able to spot deception with great accuracy after testing
more than 15,000 people. Eyes for Lies is one of the 50 people.
More
Eyes has a 97.3%
accuracy rate (to date) after identifying truth and deception in 37/38 people
before the truth was known by watching media clips.
Eyes for Lies is not psychic.
Is Deborah Perez being honest with us when she tells us that she believes that she is the daughter of the Zodiac killer?
Read moreI personally don't believe her. If you watch the interview of her, with her clownish attorney, Kevin McLean (who has reported been disbarred), you see her smile very inappropriately as she talks throughout this interview.
You can clearly see she that she is trying to repress her smiles, but she is unsuccessful. In the first 35 seconds, before Deborah says anything, she cracks a grin. Why on earth would the daughter of the real killer feel like smiling, especially if, as she claims, he used her to do some of his dirty deeds?
If anything, one who comes to this conclusion would feel shame, embarrassment, pain, agony, disbelief and perhaps, most logically, they would want to escape it--not garner the world's attention. However, someone who is not emotionally and biologically not connected would not think to feel those things, would they?
The reporter at time marker 8:13 asks, "Did you over all of these years know of the Zodiac killer?" Watch as Deborah responds with a smile, "No. Never."
Kevin McLean tells us that Deborah believes she wrote the Melvin Belli letter which I found here. It doesn't take any rocket scientist to see that no seven year old child wrote this. It's ridiculous.
When Deborah says "There are unique facts about those letters that are not publicly known," you might think she is struggling here because she is truly distraught, but there are hints that she is about to break into a smile, actually. It's almost comical. At one point to stop herself, she actually bites her lip so help her gain her composure.
She also has some incredible memories for a seven-year old little girl that I find unbelievable. She says, "I was just a child. I thought I was helping my dad. I didn't know." Yet she claims to remember people screaming and seeing blood on her dad, yet he dismissed it as motor oil, and she believed him, but now she knows better? Come on.
If she believed she heard shots as she said, but her dad explained them away as firecrackers, most seven year old children would trust and believe dad, and never give it a second thought. And most adults, 40 years later don't add up the pieces about something that happened when they were seven and suddenly realize those firecrackers were gunshots. It's nuts.
McLean says at one point after talking about the fact that Deborah can identify several of the murder victims as people her father knew, "Some other evidence that we want to come up with, that is not speculation in our mind, is certain of the victims of the Zodiac were purposefully targeted..." What?? They want to come up with evidence? That is not speculation in their mind? If they don't have it now, that means it is not evidence. Are they developing it?
At one point Deborah claims her father said to her after a murder, "'I need you to not move. Don't move. The police will not understand if they find this gun." When people create stories, they often speak as they think and hence the negative word comes later in the sentence, which is highly unusual. Remember when Drew Peterson said about Stacy Peterson, "I think she's not missing." Look at Deborah's sentence "I need you not to move". Most people would say, "Don't move!!" That's what her memory would be, I suspect, if it truly happened.
Deborah also says her father came back from the Stine murder with glasses on that she had never seen before and she believed they were Stine's glasses. What are the odds that you kill a man, and take his glasses and can wear them--that the prescription would match? Sounds like one-in-a-million to me!
What I find most ironic in this whole interview (which I did not watch in complete) is there is this man with blond hair standing behind and to Deborah's right side, and he looks remarkably like the sketch of the Zodiac killer. I am sure it is just coincidence, but I can't help but wonder who he is?
I suspect that nothing will be found to link Deborah Perez and her dad to the Zodiac killer. I suspect she and her friend McLean have been dreaming of becoming famous, and this is their go of it.
* I did not watch this entire video. I stopped somewhere around the 10 minute point.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
I heard about this story when it broke in the news back in 2006, but unfortunately, I never got to see Carlos speak prior to or during his trial. I can tell you that the circumstances alone were a huge red flag to me. Here is an attorney who is out of work, who has been disbarred, who was in financial trouble, and he decides to go home on a dark, desolate side road to get cheaper gas late at night. Amazingly, he gets run off the road, and the attacker kills his wife, but forgets to finish him off. You have to admit, the odds are pretty unlikely, especially since he tells us he was the target of threats, not his wife. The attacker also didn't do anything to conceal his identity either, which is notably odd.
Read moreThat aside, when I saw Carlos Perez-Olivo speak for the first time, I saw a man whose demeanor immediately struck me as inappropriate given the circumstances he tells us that happened the night his wife was murdered. When we recollect memories, especially difficult or painful ones, we feel the emotions again, as we think back. With that, we would expect to see Carlos express fear, panic, terror, worry and show a general sense of vulnerability after being attacked, but it is oddly missing.
Carlos' details of his account are sparse and lacking detail, too. I would classify Carlos as a negative person.
Here are some of my thoughts when I watched Carlos speak:
Carlos talked to Dateline about getting old. His statement was very strange.
Carlos: We wanted to enjoy ourselves while we were young. I think we were both deathly afraid of getting old, and ah, we saw too many people who, ah, became old, and couldn't...they had money, but then couldn't really enjoy themselves.
Does this statement make any sense? Notice how Carlos throws in the words "they had money" very oddly? It's like it came out of no where. How does that even fit in with what he is saying? It's like he wanted to talk about failing health, but thoughts of money derailed him. Didn't prosecutors say Carlos had a 900,000 life insurance policy on his wife? Yet Carlos says money wasn't important? This sentence above clearly hints otherwise...
Carlos talks about the fuel status of his cars:
Carlos: We were going to go in her car but it didn't have gas. So we went in mine that had a little bit of gas.
The words "a little bit of gas" stand out to me here as very unusual. Most people don't talk like this. Most people would note that both cars were low on gas, and before embarking on a two-hour drive for the night, they would gas up. Is Carlos trying to set the stage for what happened that night?
When it came to gasoline, Carlos said he was super cheap. So I wonder did his past purchases support this behavior? Was his car found on low like he said? So how low would it have been before he left his home, and drove to New York city that night? A two-hour round trip drive usually requires a little more than "a little bit of gas", wouldn't it? Ironically, Carlos managed to get to the hospital without running out of gas. Couldn't he have made it home then, too, and got gas another time?
When Carlos talks about spending 15 cents more for a gallon of gas, he thinks it is funny. He smiles as he talks about it. This is very perplexing. A man who honestly was run off the road and his wife was murdered by a stranger, would forever regret buying cheap gas on an off-beaten path. They would feel like their decision indirectly cause their wife's murder. They would feel incredible guilt. They would have remorse that their cheapness cost them their wife's life. Yet strangely, Carlos doesn't seem to have any feelings of regret nor does he feel guilty. He doesn't seem to feel anything negative. He thinks it is funny he likes to buy cheap gas. It's flat out eerie and inconsistent.
Notice how Carlos never talks of or uses the word murder with regard to himself or his wife? Is he sanitizing the situation? If you are victim, are you going to sanitize this monster's acts? Acts which ruined your life?
Look at Carlos' account of of what happened:
Carlos Perez-Olivo: I'm driving, and all of sudden this car kind of cut in front of me. My concern at the moment was not to get into an accident for the obvious reason that i didn't want the cops coming because I had been drinking.
This car "kind of" cut in front of him? Has that ever happened to you, where a car kind of cut in front of you? Give me a break. It's the classic hedging, a dead give away, because Carlos is trying to tell us something that should be very definitive yet his words are anything but definitive. His words are hedging, which I suspect are a subconscious leak to what the truth really is.
Carlos says the car cut in front of him, and his first fear was about getting in an accident. Then he says his initial reaction was to get out and yell at the guy. How did they come to a stop? Why doesn't Carlos give us these details?
Usually when a stranger tries to cut in front of us, they either keep on going or we go around them. Why did Carlos act differently? Why doesn't he tell us what caused him to act differently?
Next thing Carlos hints at is he saw someone who looked Colombian according to Dateline. If he didn't recognize the guy, why wouldn't he drive away? He knew he had enemies--he tells us so himself. As a defense attorney, you would think he would be a bit wiser, wouldn't you? He dealt with criminals all the time.
Later on, in the 911 call, he calls the guy a Hispanic. Did he use both terms? I'd be curious to know. Why would he switch terminology?
Dateline reported, "But in an instant, a man wearing jeans and a baseball cap and who Carlos thought vaguely looked Colombian was standing by his car window pointing a gun at him."
Okay, why wouldn't this guy conceal his face? Does this make sense to anyone? Also, where are the details in Carlos' story (see below).
Carlos Perez-Olivo: I froze. I should have put the car in reverse or I should have tried to hit the car, but I didn't. And he got into the backseat. I then reacted.
If Carlos saw a gun, why wouldn't he take action to prevent this guy from getting in the back seat? Many cars today have doors that automatically lock when we drive. Did Carlos' car have that feature? This would be interesting to know, because if he did, it would have meant that he had to unlock the doors for someone to get in if he just slowed to stop.
When Carlos said he froze, he shrugs his shoulders. He talks without any emotion. Most people in this situation would be horrified, but clearly Carlos is not. He doesn't seem to have any emotional memories from that night, which is a huge red flag, considering someone murdered his wife and supposedly attempted to murder him, too. If you didn't know the subject he was talking about, you would think it was something benign. You'd never know he was talking about the last few minutes he spent with his wife. It's a huge red flag.
Carlos never talks of his wife, or his wife's reactions during all of this, which is odd. If he was run off the road, she should have woken up. If some attacker got into the car, she should have woken up, but she seems eerily missing in this story. It flat doesn't add up.
Carlos also never recounts when the guy shot his wife, which he should recall. He should have been fearful of the gun since he saw it outside the car, and been very aware what was going on with the gun at all times. It was supposedly his central focus. How could he miss that this guy shot his wife? It's ridiculous. He was in the car the whole time.
I would have loved to have seen Carlos re-enact this crime for us.
Here is a snippet from Dateline that I think is fascinating:
(Dateline) Carlos knew he had been shot. Peggy still looked asleep in the passenger seat upfront.
The gunman fled.
Carlos got back in the driver's seat.
Carlos Perez-Olivo: I turned the car on. I picked up the phone. And I started to drive away, I called 911.
We got shot by the side of the road ... I'm going on 133, I'm trying to get to get to northern Westchester.
How did he know "we" were shot, if Dateline's account of the story is correct? If she still looked asleep and he doesn't have any memories of his wife being shot, how does he know she was shot here? It's rather perplexing, isn't it? It doesn't add up at all. Dateline could have edited this out, but I tend to doubt it by the other clues I see.
Later to 911, he says, "I can't stop, I gotta get my wife to the hospital. I think she may be...I think she may be..." Why didn't he say he thinks she was dead, or murdered? Why doesn't he say someone tried to kill him? Why are all of these details missing?
Carlos laughs when he talks about the 911 operator asking where he was. Isn't that creepy? What could possibly be funny about that? He wanted to give the operator the perpetrator's car description instead. That was more important to Carlos...more important than getting his wife help, it appears. What would be most important to you when your spouse is dying beside you--getting the word out on the killers, or saving her life? Carlos priorities are notably off.
I find it strange how Carlos hobbles into the ER. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't leave my spouse. I would start screaming for help as I stood by the car. Or I'd run in a panic screaming for immediate help. Carlos appears to slowly "hobble" in and seems content getting help for himself. He even walks quite notably calm to the front desk as if he was a normal visitor. He never makes a ruckus at all. Where did all his panic in the 911 call go? Was he giving his wife more time to expire??
Carlos Perez-Olivo: They took me into a room and I remember being upset because i thought they were working on me and not doing anything with her.
Carlos' shirt is all tucked in. Dateline made a great point about this, and I concur it doesn't fit with his scenario.
Carlos thought he was going to get away with murder, and thought he could beat the system, if you want my opinion, but now that he is in jail, and he is paying the price. Look at him here (thanks CD for sending me this today), after spending time in jail. Suddenly, Carlos is feeling remorse, for no one other than himself!! He should have felt this pain for his wife when he met with Dateline, but it was strangely and eerily missing.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
This past week, Dateline NBC ran the story of Carlos and Peggy Perez-Olivo. Carlos tells a story of being run off the road and being shot. His wife was shot in the back of the head, and later died. Police believed Carlos staged the whole incident. A jury convicted him for murder, and sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison.
Carlos' interview on Dateline was very telling. I was trying to determine if the video footage of him talking was shot during the trial or after, and I suspect it was shot after the trial. If this is the case, we would expect the clues to deceit to diminish because the high stakes of Carlos' lies dissipated, but in this footage, the clues are quite notable.
What clues to deceit did you see when you watch Carlos speak?
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Read moreMy Charlie, my Mink-mink, my Shark-a-toothus, my Gussy Mussy, my Mightus Bitus, my King Mutt Mutt, my Snuffleupagus, my Snortus Mortus, you came to us six months old...abused. We suspect you came from a puppy mill and your first owners rejected you. From your actions, we suspected you were caged your entire young life. We first met you at the humane society, and after no one else came along to adopt you, they agreed to let you come to us.
You had a broken tail, which healed imperfectly, and your tongue was split from some horrific injury. Your fur was so matted that you had to be shaved, and the humane society required that you get neutered the day you came to us, which was just more trauma for you to endure. How much could a little creature endure? Our hearts just broke for you.
It was my mission to make things right for you because of all the things other people did wrong. I was going to give you a home, and a life. I was going to give you love, and hope I could change you, but some how time never healed your wounds even after thirteen years. And then when your eyesight went at four years old, it only made things more challenging for you. Your fears intensified and you always feared abandonment no matter what we did, but we continued to love you anyway.
We fenced in a yard so you could have freedom. We bought you a ball that squeaked when it rolled so you could find it by sound, and you learned to love that. Blind and all, you'd chase it down the hill and under the pine tree and when you couldn't find it, we'd say "There it is" when you were hot, and "No, no!" when you were cold, and with your unrelenting spirit, you always found your ball and played fetch with us. You barreled down that hill with joy many years before your interest slowly faded away. You never let your blindness stop you.
You loved to schnoodle your pig ears every Saturday. You sucked and susseled them until they were mush because your teeth were so crooked, you couldn't crack them, but you always managed. You let us know you could do anything you set your mind to. That's for sure! You let it be known you never wanted help as much as we wanted to give it to you. You had incredible pride.
You fought for a place on this earth, and you let your voice be heard. You howled if you felt we left, even when we were nearby. And if we didn't listen to you, without a thought, you'd grab our foot with a firm hold, and let us know you didn't approve. At times, you lashed out, and scared us, but we were committed. You weren't going to chase us off. We loved you, and we were always going to be there for you.
Your favorite food was no doubt salmon: canned, smoked or fresh. You didn't care. You loved fish, in general, too. All fish--including sushi, sardines and even anchovies! You let it be known to us that you preferred fish to meat any day, which blew us away. You were a fish and veggie dog that's for sure. When you were young, you took out your aggression on broccoli stalks (remember we called them Rockly-bones?). You loved munching raw carrots (we called them carrote-ies), and cauliflower? You never saw the messes you left behind, but I'd find hundreds of little cauliflower crumbs you failed to sniff out. They always made me sigh, and then smile as I cleaned them up. If you weren't going to accept anything else, you were going to eat like a king, that's for sure.
We were amazed when you decided you liked a nice vinegar and oil salad with cucumbers, tomatoes, mushrooms, and even onions. Somehow, though, these last few years, you changed your mind on that. Did you develop a picky palette after all your exposure to good foods? You always gave me peace that I never had to throw anything away because if no one else wanted it, you'd be sure to gobble it up. You even loved shrimp shells -- go figure. It was a good and natural source of calcium. And you liked sour pickles, who knew? You also made it very clear you never wanted black olives. Blech!! It was the one food you rejected every single time. In reality, you just loved to eat. It was your one of your biggest pleasures in life, no doubt. And it was my pleasure too, to feed you and watch you happily chomp away. Charlie, you taught me how to be proud no matter what your obstacle. You always let us know that you could do it. Loosing your eyesight didn't deter you. You never wanted help. You were very independent and walked on the leash as if you could see. You were always going to do it, whatever it was, no matter what. You didn't give up when furniture was moved and you hit walls. You got back up and continued on. You played with your ball, throwing it over your back and running around the living room-- just seeing shadows and you rarely knocked anything over. You were incredible that way. You were going to have a life, regardless. You persevered. You were strong. You wanted to live.
And yet all these years, we hurt for you. We longed to love you like our other dog. We longed to hold you, and spoil you with affection, but you never were able to handle it. You hated it and weren't shy to let us know. I never managed to hold you once in thirteen years, and that pains me deeply. I played by your rules, and food was your love of choice, and so I indulged you there.
And then Lulu got sick and required all our attention, and you were pushed to the side. Your voice wasn't heard and acknowledged as much because her situation seemed much more dire. We both envisioned time with you, and you alone, after Lulu passes. We figured we could spoil you like crazy then. You'd have your day as the only dog, the top dog, but little did we know that you needed us more than she did, and we feel we let you down, when you needed us most.
Oh how I wish I could take time back and make it right, Charlie. You so deserved it. Just know, with all of my heart that I loved you and I tried my very, very best.
You will always be my baby boylie, my sweet Charlie, my baby Binky. My heart aches more than words could ever express.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Many of you have heard me worry about my dog who has been sick with liver issues this past year. She's been ailing lately and I've been struggling with it.
Well, last night, my younger (13.5 year old) dog, who I thought was as healthy as a horse, had what appeared was a heart attack last night at bed time. He couldn't breathe good and was struggling for air, so we rushed him to the vet.
The vet said he had cancer and it was on his heart and the tumor must have broken and filled the heart sac with blood putting too much pressure on his heart for it to function good. We had to put him to sleep, and yet he had a totally normal day up until the moment this hit him. It just shocking.
I am so lost today and devastated.
I miss my Charlie so much it's killing me. He is the proud brown doggie in the photo.
Oh, Charlie, I never saw this coming and I'm so, so, so sorry. I love you so much and will miss you more than words could ever express....if only I could turn back the hands of time. I want more time with you....
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
I am curious if anyone watched ABC's 20/20 last night? As I watched Stacey Castor, the mother who was convicted of killing her second husband, is suspected in the poisoning death of her first husband, and who also attempted to kill her daughter, I kept seeing an aged Cynthia Sommer in my mind...the irony of which did not hit me until I went to bed. Both women (Castor and Sommer) have been accused and tried for the poisoning deaths of their husbands.
Do you see a resemblance?
Castor's story that she and her husband were going to go away for two weeks on vacation, but that her husband was sad and depressed hit me as a big contradiction. It was my first and immediate red flag that Castor told tall stories! There was nothing in Castor that I saw that supported honesty. She was clearly a cold and callous woman, the likes of which I hope I don't see again.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Read moreDrew Peterson was on a morning TV show in Chicago this week, and said something very damning. When the reporter asked Drew what he told their children about Stacy since she has been gone for over a year, he said, "She's on vacation still, and she's not coming back." The reporter than clarified Drew's response and said, "Why do you say she's not coming back?" Drew very calmly said, "I didn't say she's not coming back." It was fascinating.
Drew had no idea he actually said it, if you want my opinion. I think it is a great example of how the subconscious brain works. He spoke from gut here, without thinking, and his true feelings, I believe, came out. Drew is that relaxed in the beginning of this video that he didn't even think about self-censoring.
Drew then says, "I didn't mean to say that...she's ah...she's on vacation....and (shoulder shrug) we don't know when she's coming back." Here we can clearly see Drew thinking on his feet as he talks. Now, realizing he slipped up, he is self-censoring. Watch how he looks directly at the reporter when he is finished. He is checking out how she is responding to his answer. This is a common trait of people who are deceptive. They want to know if they've convinced you, because if they feel they haven't, they will continue to speak until they feel they have done so.
There is another interesting moment in this video as well, when the reporter mentions what the pastor says Stacy told him and testified to before the grand jury. The reporter says according to the pastor Stacy told him that the night of Savio's death, she woke up to find Drew gone. He continues, "In the morning, the pastor said Stacy saw Peterson standing in front of a washing machine, dressed in black and holding a bag. Peterson washed the clothes he was wearing, and the women's clothes that were in the bag, the suit states. He then allegedly told Stacy that he hit Savio in the back of the head, making her death look like an accident."
The entire time the reporter is reading that statement, Drew is listening intensely. It's very notable. It appears this is the first time he heard this. The tension in his face and body at this point is incredible. It's tipping the charts!! Do you feel it? It actually makes me tense and nervous.
Drew responds, "Non...none of that ever happened" and he immediately looks to his attorney to help him. He is notably shook up.
When Drew's attorney speaks up, look at how Drew stares out into space. He is in shock about this, as if he is stunned that Stacy talked about this to someone, in this great of detail. Why didn't Drew act all comical like he always does and say, "That's nonsense!" and laugh, like usual?
I suspect what the pastor testified to is likely the truth, and it rattled Drew to the bone! Watching Drew rattled me to the bone.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
On Friday, reports the Huffington Post, Kate and Gerry McCann will record an interview with Oprah. I don't know when it will air, but I am looking forward to seeing them speak again.
To read my original opinions of Kate and Gerry McCann back in May of 2007, click here, or click on the labels below for all of my posts on this topic.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Read moreWhen I watch the video above, I don't see any indications of deceit. George is truly proud of his daughter when he speaks about her.
I also believe the Anthonys when they say they just don't know what Casey was thinking, and that they still have questions. That makes sense. Casey likely has refused to answer questions. She probably has used excuses like she fears her conversations will be released to the media, she's still afraid of what "these people" might do to her parents, she's too stressed out to talk, and if the Anthonys have pressured her, I am sure she has threatened them on some level.
There was one interesting slip that Cindy made that was notable here:
RODRIGUEZ: What finally prompted you, Cindy, to call the police?
CINDY ANTHONY: I could sm...when I saw Casey, I could tell something was wrong.
I think she didn't want to bring up the smell of the car again. That is what truly concerned Cindy, and she has already told us that. Of course, today, she doesn't want to believe that Casey could have left Caylee in the car, dead and decomposing, and I am sure she doesn't want to open that can of worms again. She is reminded about it every day, if she turns on her TV.
When Rodriquez ask the Anthonys, "Do you fault her for anything?" I think George's response is interesting. Watch how he presses his lips together and up. It's indicative that George is holding back. Do I think the Anthony's knew their daughter was a liar? I do, but I don't think they thought that equated to the potential for murder. There are many pathological liars who never murder.
While people are hard on the Anthonys for standing beside their daughter, I wonder how people would feel if they stood up and threw her under the bus? What would be more outrageous?
I commend the Anthonys on their unconditional love for their daughter. Love doesn't mean that they approve of her actions, should they come to terms with them. And if I were in Cindy Anthony's shoes, I would continue to speak publicly in defense of my daughter as well. I think it is all that the Anthonys have left in a very hopeless situation regardless of what they believe is the truth.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Here is a preview of Part 2 of the interview the Anthonys did with Maggie Rodriguez of The Early Show that will air tomorrow. Cindy Anthony talks about writing suicide notes last summer.
Check back tomorrow for my thoughts on the entire segment!
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Read moreThe one notable element in this video for me was that Cindy is clinging steadfast to the belief that Casey is innocent, but when I watch George, I see indications that lead me to believe that George has come to terms with Casey and Caylee, and the real potential that Casey killed Caylee, but he is unable to share it because either Cindy cannot cope with it, or he doesn't want to talk publicly about it because it could obviously affect a fair trial for Casey. I get this feeling from the subtle moves George makes when Maggie Rodriquez asks Cindy and George questions about their belief in Casey's innocence.
RODRIGUEZ: How are you so sure? Why do you say with such conviction that she didn't do this?
C. ANTHONY: We love our daughter. We stand behind her. We know what kind of mother she was.
RODRIGUEZ: Is it because you love her (ph) daughter that you need to believe this or because you believe unflinchingly that it's not possible that she did this?
G. ANTHONY: I don't think it's possible for my daughter to hurt anyone. And she wouldn't definitely hurt her own child. I mean, my gosh, I've seen the love every single day that she had for her. You know, she took care of her being with us. So, I mean, she wouldn't hurt her.
George's answer here also just strikes me as a cover for his real feelings. "I mean", "my gosh", and "so I mean" sound like he is trying to convince us of something he doesn't likely believe. He also shrugs his shoulders several times, which indicates doubt or a lack of conviction for what he is saying. George also seems to be on the verge of breaking down through much of the interview. If he has potentially come to terms with everything, we would expect that he would be very emotional. Cindy, on the other hand, has strength and does seem to get some peace from her beliefs about Casey.
Cindy looks slightly different in this video. Did you notice? There is a heaviness about her here, unlike I have ever seen before. I see it most in her eyes. I wonder if she is facing depression, or if she is just exhausted from a nightmare year. The other potential is that she is on some type of medication to relax her or help her cope with the emotional turmoil in her life.
I can't imagine being George or Cindy Anthony. I can't imagine the hell their lives have become. I don't blame them for what Casey did. I think Casey was a very troubled and difficult woman to deal with, who put George and Cindy in positions that were nearly impossible to deal with. If you've never known the fury of a psychopath, you couldn't possible understand the predicaments psychopaths will put you in. They put you in places where there is no winning solution. I suspect Cindy was ready to kick Casey out and fight for Caylee, and Casey's ultimate revenge against her mother for that threat was to kill Caylee. How can anyone predict such insane behavior?
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Yesterday afternoon, the furnace company sent out two service guys to try to get to the bottom of our leak because the owner couldn't resolve it on his emergency visit on Sunday night. None of their detectors were picking up on our problem; however, our detector kept going off with stellar precision.
It was a sight to see these two guys, one of them middle-aged, around 50, and another in his 30s, come into my basement with me home alone. They thought for sure they were going to end this matter simply because I was a woman, and uneducated in the science of gases and furnaces. Too bad for them, they didn't know I am great at reading body language and I know when I am being lied to, or attempted to be fooled with. I knew by the way the owner left the night before, he was convinced I didn't have a problem, my detector was flawed, and he or his employees were going to convince me of that fact one way or another.
Read moreI showed the guys in, let them test for the leak with their equipment, and then when their equipment didn't go off, I asked them for the technical specifics of their tester, as I showed them mine. Lo and behold, they didn't know. So I educated them on average statistical facts about gas detectors and told them they likely had a tester less sensitive than mine (LEL 10%). You can imagine it didn't go over well. They didn't say a word.
They quickly grabbed my detector and started going over the room. When my unit hit on a dime, each time over their furnace near where the gas line entered, they were annoyed. It was palpable. They couldn't explain it. They knew the owner had changed the union three times and all three times my detector picked up a leak, so they were just certain my detector was flawed, but how were they going to convince me?
I asked them if they brought a carbon monoxide detector, and they told me they didn't know they needed one. What a nightmare. I personally suspect the owner didn't suspect carbon monoxide, and when he couldn't blame the water heater on me, because I told him it would still be part of his contractual obligation, he decided not to focus on that anymore.
The second thing these two guys did was bubble test the unions from the night before. They didn't see any bubbles, but I could see they couldn't see behind the union, because it was in a tight enclosure on both sides, so I asked if they had a mirror. They did not. It pissed them off even more. How could they be sure it wasn't leaking then, I asked? "We can see all sides, and there are no bubbles," the younger man said. I stood and watched.
Getting frustrated, I wasn't the uneducated housewife they had hoped for, they both put their backs to me and started scouring the room with my detector. I knew exactly what they were up to. They were going to find another leak, they thought, because my detector was so sensitive. They were sure they could blame it on something else, even though there was clearly a leak at the site of their new furnace. It was funny to watch. It was ridiculous.
They tested all our old gas unions and values. I was confident they wouldn't find anything, as we had done it all already. Nothing. They then tested the rest of their work, and nothing, at which point I reminded them, it was a good indication my unit performed perfectly. They couldn't blame my detector for being faulty at that point. They stood there, with their backs to me, dumbfounded, sharing glances at each other, not acknowledging me. If only you could have been a fly on the wall. It was priceless. I knew exactly what was going on.
So the guy covers the detector with his hands, and it goes off. He turns around and comes right up to my face. He says, "See, anything will set this thing off. It's not dependable."
I quickly corrected him. "Actually, no, you emit carbon dioxide," I said, "and that is what is setting off the detector. It picks up on carbon dioxide and monoxide. Breathe on it. You'll see, it will go off."
You should have seen them slump. They weren't doing a good job of convincing me, and they knew it! I just smiled back, politely.
Frustrated, they put their backs to me again, all the while exchanging what they believed to be non-obvious eye-rolls. They are thinking hard, how can they convince me, it is my detector. I continue to watch intently, wondering what the next thing will be.
Then the older guy pipes up and says, "I know! It's picking up on the bubble liquid that we just used." He quickly opens up the bubble soap, and the alarm goes off.
"See, this machine isn't reliable," he says to me.
I grin and say, "Not so fast. The owner was here last night, and it alarmed over his unions, and there was NO bubble soap used then. Sorry, that's not it. He even tested his pipe dope/teflon. It didn't go off. It's obviously picking up on a gas, perhaps alcohol (which it is rated for), but not the gas we are looking for."
If looks could kill...
They turned their back to me a third time, and they continued looking around the room. Within a minute, I see one flash a grin to the other. They must really have thought I was clueless. Next, I see the older guy go to our sewer lift station, and put my detector there. It alarms slightly, very slightly and as he goes up the pipes, the alarm gets more intense.
"Of course it will alarm when you go up, " I speak out. "Natural gas is lighter than air. We have a natural gas leak. We've pinpointed that already. No surprise there. I'm telling you, my unit works flawlessly."
Without even acknowledging me, the guy then goes to the bathroom vent pipe, and my unit ticks faster there, and it slowly goes into an alarm. He is about ready to turn around and say to me, "See. This is your problem. This is leaking, and this is causing the problem."
It was absolutely rubbish, and I knew it on multiple levels. While my detector picks up on multiple gases, it is easy to figure out. So I don't give him a chance. I say to them as they are exchanging glances between themselves again, and still have their backs to me, thinking they are going to pull the wool over my eyes, "Of course it is going off, you are picking up hints of methane. That's to be expected. You're testing the plumbing pipes. I may have a leaky vent pipe, but we are dealing with gas, so let's stay focused."
Their body language tenses. It is clear that they getting mad at me. I know they want to tell me to go to hell. I stood there wondering how often these service guys and all the other workers who have come to me over the years get away with their B.S. at other homes. I can only tell you from the reactions I get by calling people out, they must get away with this behavior frequently at other homes, because when I am done with most of these guys, they don't know what hit them. They've never experienced anything like me before. I can see the bewilderment in their eyes once I get everything resolved.
Totally frustrated, the guys come up to me and say, "If our detector doesn't detect a leak, you don't have a leak. Period."
I quickly remind them that my whole house was alarming the other night, that this problem is much larger than than a faulty tester. I explained if my whole house didn't test positive and react appropriately to the airing out steps we took, I might consider it is my detector, but in light of that, they were wrong and needed to get to the heart of the matter. I confirmed I know my detector works like a charm.
They turned around, totally hopeless, and didn't know what to do. Then one got a call from the owner, and walked outside, and then the other excused himself up the driveway. They ran into my husband and gave him the lousy excuse, because they forgot their CO detector, they were going to go to Home Depot to buy a wall unit by Night Hawk with a readout. They'd be right back. My husband told them not to, this wasn't about CO, it was about natural gas. They ignored him and left anyway. I was not surprised at all. It was just so unprofessional. They wanted to get away from me! That was clear.
The problem with having the ability that I have is that I can keep people on the straight and narrow, like I did above, but finally, they don't know how to cope and they just bolt. And that is exactly what these two men did. I immediately called the company secretary and told her to tell them not to bother with the CO detector as that was useless. We didn't hear from the furnace company the rest of the day.
Clearly, these guys couldn't figure out the problem and had hoped to put the blame on my ignorance, but it didn't work.
Frustrated, we called the local gas company, because we could smell slight hints of gas. The gas guy came out, and within 10 minutes, we pinpointed the leak. When the gas company worker took off the sealed burner cover on the furnace, my husband ran our detector over the values at the same time, and nothing! We then knew the leak we were detecting was coming from the values inside the furnace and out over the union, which was supposed to be sealed. The gas company confirmed it, and wrote up a report for us. The leak is minor, but there.
Today, I immediately called the furnace corporate customer service number and asked if this area on our furnace should be sealed where the gas line enters the closed chamber, as I suspect it should be and she said "Absolutely".
Today, we called the owner and told him to get out here tonight and fix it! He now says it all makes sense to him, and he understands why our detector was picking up gas. He suspects it is a value that is leaking. This guy probably thought I was a nut job Sunday night. I wonder what he thinks of me today...
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Remember I had a gas leak (three) that were found in November due to my good nose? And just a few weeks ago, we had a carbon monoxide leak, and replaced our furnace?
Well, I had bugged my husband twice after the furnace was installed (part fear, part intuition?) to test it again. I asked him the day after the install, and the following weekend, twice. I honestly did have a nagging feeling, but kept writing it off because I figured I was just sensitive and afraid after all we had been through.
I hit the couch last night early after a light day, and I was so exhausted, I couldn't keep my eyes open. It was 6:30 PM. By 9:00 PM, my husband said let's go to bed early. My dog was stone cold out when my husband picked her up. We went to bed. I laid there and thought this is spring, when I usually am bouncing off the walls. What's up with me? I was mad and annoyed. Is it stress from an upheaval month? Or is it something else?
Read moreWhen my husband came upstairs, I said, "Please go run the meter and test everything again. Please?" After hearing me ask four times now since the furnace guy left, and having heard me ask him multiple times before we discovered the previous carbon monoxide leak, this time, for whatever reason, he leaped into action.
As soon as he calibrated the hand held tester, and walked in the front door --wham! The alarm blared. We reset it, aired out the first floor and did it again. It didn't go off until we held it at the floor in an area that didn't draft. As we went downstairs, it alarmed again. It went off the highest in our utility room, and at the furnace.
We had had enough. We called the furnace guy, who didn't show up until 10:30, and he was here until well past midnight. He found two gas leaks from his crew's work!! And after refitting them several times, he was unable to get a good seal. They never freak'n pressure tested the gas lines after they moved them. We are still detecting a very small leak.
Can I scream?
Now the guy is coming out today because he fears the water heater may not be getting enough draft to vent properly now that the furnace has moved. I've done my homework now, after the fact, and he should have done calculations and done a back-draft test which he never did. And if the venting wasn't sufficient, he should have installed a smaller chimney liner. That was all part of why I hired this guy, and this work, if necessary, is still part of our original contract obligations!
I'm in for a long day.
I'm just worn out with this stuff. I need a break, don't you think?
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Last night, my mom showed me this clip of Susan Boyle from a show called "Britain's Got Talent", the equivalent to American Idol. She told me I just had to see Boyle sing, and expected me to be blown away by the experience.
But what blew me away and what was so much fun for me were all the reactions of people watching Boyle as caught by the camera crew. I saw a heap of body language and emotions. Simon Cowell had me laughing with his incredible eyebrow raise, but there is just so much more in this video. I could probably write an incredibly long post sharing all that I see.
So give it a watch and see what expressions and emotions you see. The faces and reactions in this video tell us heaps. You feel a wealth of emotions, and you can even pick up on peoples' thoughts by their expressions in this video when you watch it, without ever having to consciously think about it. How does that happen? Could it be mirror neurons (thanks, Mary, for introducing them to me)?
This video is truly a special moment on so many levels. I just love watching it and I want to say a big Wow to Susan! You are amazing!! Way to go! You give me chills (in a lovely way), and you bring tears to my eyes....
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Dateline featured "Cape Fear: N.C. town paralyzed after murders" last week, and profiled a cold case squad who attempted to bring new insight to the murders of both Allison Foy and Angela Rothen. Both women were found next to each other in a wooded area often frequented by prostitutes, murdered by a knife, potentially a year apart, and both were likely sexually assaulted.
One suspect in the case came forward and agreed to speak to Dateline: Tim Iannone and his wife, Susan. Tim wasn't on the radar until his wife, Susan, wrote the private investigator on the case, and said he should look at her husband. She said she just wanted to clear his name from the rumor mill.
My review is long, so bear with me. I think my end thoughts may surprise you!
Read moreHere are my thoughts on Tim and Susan Iannone:
When Tim is talking to news reporters outside his house, he is actually smiling when he says, "They've got the wrong guy. That's all I have to say." Why is he smiling? This is a red flag.
Susan wants us to believe she wrote the investigator to help clear her husband's name, and I'm flat out not buying it. I suspect she got mad at some point, and perhaps afraid that there might be some truth to the story, she lashed out in an emotional state. Susan is one who has a hard time with her emotions, if you want my opinion.
Josh Mankiewicz: How and why did you reach out to Marc Benson, the private eye?
Susan Iannone: Truthfully? And this will be the first time that my husband's ever heard this. And if I have tears, you'll understand that. I feel responsible for all this. And he doesn't even know it. Rumors were going around that my husband had something to do with Allison. Well, that made me mad.
Does anyone really believe this is the first time she is telling her husband this? I'm certainly not. Does she feel responsible for putting him in the spotlight? Absolutely.
Watch when Susan says, "first time my husband's ever heard this", notice her shake her head in a yes movement? It's as if she is answering her own question. It's fascinating. I believe this is an involuntary response. Often deceptive people do this.
When Mankiewicz asked Tim to tell us what happened with Sonya, the prostitute, he says with an obvious smile that he can't talk about it due to potential civil litigation. Notice how Susan steps right up and tries to tell us Sonya stole from Tim? Why didn't Tim say that? Tim responds, again:
Tim Iannone: She stole from me, more or less. But there was no assault. No beating. The worst thing I ever did was pull her hair to keep her from running. But it was not an attack, a rape. It was nothing like that.
The words "more or less" are interesting. Either she stole, or she didn't. This is a big red flag. Also, if Tim grabbed her by her hair to keep her from running, wouldn't he have been able to get his stolen property back? He is obviously a big guy capable of overpowering a woman. When Tim continues to talk, he shows positive emotions again. He seems to get very positive feelings when talking about all of this. I can't help but wonder why. If you are wrongly accused, you don't feel like smiling. This is a big red flag.
When Mankiewicz asks Susan if she believes he didn't attack Williams, she really struggles when she says, "Yes". Watch her scrunch up her mouth. It shows she is struggling with this answer. It's notable and obvious. Why does she struggle with this?
Tim tells Mankiewicz that Williams was the only prostitute he picked up, but Dateline found another woman who admitted to being with him. They interviewed her, and I believed her. Later on, Dateline reported that the police said that Tim told them he had picked up nine prostitutes. There are too many people who are telling a different story than Tim. This shows us Tim is inconsistent and not trustworthy.
The interview goes on:
Josh Mankiewicz: Is Sonia Williams the only prostitute you've ever picked up?
Tim Iannone: Yes. (Notice how soft-spoken he is when he says this?)
Josh Mankiewicz: So other prostitutes who say that you've assaulted them, they're also lying?
Tim Iannone: Yes.
Josh Mankiewicz: And they'd be doing that why?
Tim Iannone: I have no idea.
When Tim says "I have no idea", there is a positive emotion on his face again. Why?
Susan Iannone then says, "Sometimes you have to consider the source, be it right, be it wrong."
Isn't this the most ironic statement? She sits next to her husband, who visited prostitutes, admits to having oral sex with Williams, and admittedly has lied to her, but she tells us we shouldn't trust a prostitute? Who has the history of lying here? Her husband or the prostitute?? Unbelievable.
Josh Mankiewicz: Meaning that a prostitute's word is worth less than a guy who works for a living?
Susan Iannone: In my opinion, sure.
When Tim says he doesn't have an alibi for that night, it's amazing how Susan just steps in again. We later hear her change her story, so we know she wasn't honest here.
Josh Mankiewicz: What's your alibi for the night that Allison disappeared?
Tim Iannone: I don't have one. I don't know where I was that night. I mean, I was home, I would guess.
Susan Iannone: I do! We were home by seven o'clock. And that's where we stayed. That's where he was.
Josh Mankiewicz: You're his alibi?
Susan Iannone: Yes. I'da knocked him out if he wasn't at home with me!
When Susan speaks up like this, you can see this cocky grin on her face. It's out of place, but more than that, her answer is funny. It's out of character for her and her situation with Tim. She tells us she would have knocked him out. Wait a minute. This is a woman who is still with him after he has lied to her, been with a prostitute, and has multiple other prostitutes accusing him of abuse, and she wants us to believe she puts her foot down in this marriage? It's a complete contradiction to her behavior pattern already defined. It's nonsense by this fact alone. I knew instantly it was B.S., because her story flat out doesn't match her known behaviors.
When Mankiewicz talks about all circumstances that make Tim a reasonable suspect, Tim smirks when he says, "I would have looked at me." Tim seems to really enjoy this.
When Mankiewicz ask if Tim is a murderer, I am troubled by his soft tone when he says, "No". He uses the same tone in the other responses during the interview. It's very notable to me. When people believe something, especially something this serious, there is usually conviction in there voice, which is clearly missing here. Tim is also a man who likely has a temper, and when he feels violated, he is not one to hold it back.
Josh Mankiewicz: Did you kill Allison Foy?
Tim Iannone: No.
Josh Mankiewicz: Did you kill Angela Rothen?
Tim Iannone: No.
Mankiewicz continues....
Josh Mankiewicz: What do you think happened to those women?
Tim Iannone: I couldn't even speculate. I don't know what kind of mind could contemplate doing something like that. I have no idea.
Notice how when Tim speaks here, again, he is smirking and then flat out smiling. It's very interesting and highly notable. Why does he feel such positive emotions about this?? Does he feel like he is getting away with something?
An unnamed prostitute speaks out about being with Tim, and tells us an interesting story. She says that Tim gave her his cell phone number and told her to call if she needed a ride anywhere, that he would give her a ride, she says, in exchange for sexual favors.
Woman: He picked me up on numerous occasions, at least 10 to 15 times. He gave me his cell phone number to have me call him if I needed a ride, if I didn't have money instead of exchanging money me paying for the ride, we exchanged sexual favors.
My husband actually made an amazing statement when we watched this. He said what if on the way home from the bar, Allison realized in her drunken state that she didn't have money left, that she had spent it all? What if Tim was her cab driver? How would Tim think? According to this unknown prostitute above, Tim would think "sexual favors". If it was Tim, could he have demanded sexual favors from Allison that night, and she refused? Could that be how this whole thing happened?
Police check out Tim's alibi, Susan, and find out that he didn't clock out from driving the cab until after midnight. Susan's response is not surprising. Susan's facial features remind me of people who suffer from alcoholism. I wonder if she is known to drink, and drink in excess?
Susan Iannone: I mean, the only reason I would've said 7 o'clock was because it was a Sunday, and it may not have been a Sunday. We don't...I don't remember.
Dateline: So you think maybe you were mistaken?
Susan Iannone: I mean, sure, I could be. That was 2006!
This fits with Susan's personality a whole lot better than her first answer, doesn't it?
In November 2008, police cleared Iannone. The cold case squad talked about how important the DNA evidence is, and I couldn't disagree. They also talked about how Tim shook his head yes when he said no. These are very strong indicators that Tim is not being honest with us. Yet the police also said that Tim volunteered to come in and speak to them, which is highly unusual for a guilty person to do.
Tim is certainly an interesting character, and I must say I am torn about what to think of him. I do believe he is a cold, callous man without much regard for other people. He has no problem lying to the woman he has been married to for over 20 years. Worse, several prostitutes are alleging that he abused them. I think that makes Tim a dangerous man, and someone we should be concerned with. And most importantly, he seems to perfectly fit the profile of someone who could do this crime.
However, some "bad boys", like Tim, often gloat in the darkness, and even if they didn't commit a crime, and it is rumored they did, they enjoy the fact that they are intimidating people, scaring people, and have an edge over them. People like this love the power play that a bad reputation gives them, even if it is false, and they enjoy playing the part.
Could that be what Tim is doing here? He realized long ago, no one could read him, and so the question is, is he delighting in fooling people for another reason other than deception?
At this time, I am unable to determine the cause of Tim's delight. It could be true duper's delight, or enjoyment of being thought of as a "killer" when he, in fact, is not.
I went back and looked at the nod that the cold case squad point out in the interview when Tim denied he is a murderer, and killing the two women (Part 5, time marker 1:50). I didn't notice it as anything unusual when I first saw it, and I wondered why. And when I watched it a second time after it was pointed out, I wasn't sure this was deceptive body language. I wanted to know why. Then I realized I should compare his "yes" responses, where we know he is being true, to this. Were they the same?
If you rewind the clip back a few minutes, to where Tim answers Mankiewicz's questions about submitting his DNA, and passing a polygraph, which we know for sure are true, his nod to these questions is very different than the nod when he says "no" in reply to the questions about killing the women.
When we know Tim is honest, and he says yes, his head goes from the up position to the down position, and there is a slight shaking movement. Yet when he responded that he did not kill the woman, his head went from down to the up position. I would think, just intuitively, that when Tim says yes and believes it, his body language would be the same as when he lies and his head involunarily moves in the yes motion. The fact that the two nods are different, makes me question if they mean the same thing. I wondered if I picked up on this innately, and that is why I didn't register these nods the first time?
When Tim was asked what his reaction was to being cleared, he looks totally deflated. He says, "I think that's good, but I expected it to be followed by the annoucement arresting someone for this." Why did this deflate him? Did it mean his "bad boy" game was over? Is that why he went on Dateline, again, to potentially renew the gig? If this was a game of duper's delight, wouldn't Tim still be just as happy as he always was, pulling the wool over everyone's eyes?
I wonder, did police use his cell phone pings from that night on the job to see if he was in the area? No one ever mentioned that. Wouldn't his cell phone also have logged in all calls received and made? If there were no calls from the pub, and all calls received at the hours around when Allison disappeared did not link back to anyone known to have been at the pub that night, wouldn't that help support that Tim wasn't likely the cab driver?
Intuitively, I am leaning slightly on this case in one direction, but when my logic kicks in, it fights with my intuition and tells me, wait, be cautious, don't decide [so officially, I am undecided at this time]. I'd really like to see the "confidant" and "husband" speak. That might give me my answers!
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Amanda Knox made a statement at Rudy Guede's trial, nearly one year after Meredith Kercher's murder. You can hear that statement here. 48 Hours reports that at the end of the day at Guede's trial, there was a surprise: "Amanda asked to address the court."
Did Amanda talk to her lawyers and plan to make this statement? I can't imagine any attorney would let her ramble on and on, without having reviewed what she had to say, but this statement certainly doesn't sound prepared. It's just a mess. What was her attorney thinking? What was Amanda thinking?
I tried to search online to see if this statement was prepared, but I can't find confirmation. If anyone finds this information, please let me know.
Read moreThere is no doubt when I listen to this statement that Amanda was exceptionally nervous here. You can hear it in her voice. It quivers from fear, and fear of this nature can cause us to stutter and skip words--especially if we are reading from a prepared statement. Yet when I realize she had one year to compose herself, and get her facts straight, I'm surprised even more by this statement. She really doesn't say much to her defense. You would think after a year in jail, she would have worked out a feasible account of that night, wouldn't you?
Amanda says:
I want to....reiterate my position, for all of this case, and also to clarify....the confusion that I...have brought to this case.
Okay. I want to clarify what it is that happened to me in ...um... the...um...in the Questore -- the day that-- the day that I made declarations that didn't make sense, that changed.
After....um... the discovery of Meredith, I had spent days in....uh, cooperating with the police, to try to just give as much information as I could.
The question I and everyone else should have at this point is, if Amanda is telling us the truth, why did she have to "try to give" information? Why didn't it come naturally? When we are honest, we don't struggle and try. Speaking and fact recollection are second nature to us.
The day of the fifth, I wasn't called to the Questore. Raffaele was called, but I decided to go with him, to keep him company, but also because I was scared to be alone.
When I was there, I had just planned to wait, but the police came into their waiting room and wanted to talk to me more about what I knew, people that I knew who had come to my house. I gave them phone numbers and--
I am very troubled at how Amanda has thoughts through this entire statement that just stop cold in the middle of the sentence, such as "phone numbers and ---". This is likely a form of "self-censoring" by Amanda. Amanda is thinking things and decides not to say them, and that concerns me. These are huge red flags and they happen over and over again. I could understand once or twice, if someone is nervous, and reading from a prepared statement, but this is just too many times. Why is she doing this?
After that, they moved me into another room and started asking me the same questions, what I had done that night, asking me...for times, exact time periods, exactly what I did. And was.....(cut).... it was difficult for me because it was in the middle of the night that I.... we had been called, hired. I was very tired. And I was also quite stressed out. And I.... so I....(sigh)
Does this make any sense? She couldn't remember because she was tired? It was the middle of the night? Does anyone believe this is a good reason for a lack of all memory? When Amanda is telling us this, a year has passed from the crime, so why doesn't she elaborate more in this statement? Why isn't she setting the record straight for the judge here and now?
They kept asking me the same questions, time periods....um, exactly sequences of actions and I did my best, to give the same information over and over and over again.
Why isn't Amanda saying, "This is the truth. This is what I told the police over and over again, but they didn't want to hear it"? She doesn't seem to have any memories of what she said. Why does she say that she "did my best" to give "the same information"? If she told the truth, the best memory wouldn't be important, would it? Why doesn't she ever speak of the truth?
Um...At a certain point...um, excuse me. At a certain point, they um... they began...the police began to be more aggressive with me. They called me a liar and.......They told me that I was....of all the things that I had kept saying, over and over again, they said that I was lying. They said that....(unnn)
Amanda calls it aggressive when someone calls her a liar. I find that interesting. Furthermore, her self-censoring at the end of that paragraph really gets to me. The "unnn" sound at the end seems like a form of "biting her lip" so-to-speak -- a sound like she is holding herself back. Why would she be doing that? Why is she holding herself back at such a valuable time? Honest people have nothing to hide, but Amanda seems to be hiding a lot. It's a huge red flag.
They threatened that I was going to go in prison for 30 years because I was hiding something. But I--(unn) but I felt...I felt completely stressed out, blocked, because I wasn't lying. (cut) I didn't know what I... I didn't know what to do.
Then they started pushing on me the idea that I must have seen something, and forgotten about it. They said that I was traumatized. (cut)
What I find fascinating throughout Amanda's statement is she has no problem recounting what the police say to her. When she does, she speaks quite coherently with very little pauses and hesitations. However, when it comes to her memories and her actions, you suddenly hear hesitations, stops, starts and self-censoring. Whenever you see the word "I", you see increased stress. If she is honest, I would not expect to see this. I would expect her to be consistent across the board. Clearly, she is not.
I didn't understand. I became really confused. I tried to--ex, re-express, re-explain what I had done-- the fact that I didn't have to go to work. At that point, they-- I gave them my phone so they could see that I didn't have to um, I received-- okay-- okay--see - because I received an SMS, and for that reason, they kept repeating to me that I was lying about - uh, SMS. I was confused.
So, what ended up happening was.... the fact that I had been pressured so much, and I was....(sigh), I was hit in the back of the head by one of the police officers...who said she was trying to make me...help me remember the truth.
She was pressured so much that she was hit on the back of the head? Does that make sense? Why does she change "make me" which is a strong statement to "help me", which is much softer? I find this odd. If someone is hitting me on the back of the head, they aren't "helping me" do anything. They are making me forcefully and brutally react. Why aren't her emotional memories matching her story? These words are red flags for me. This is an indication she is trying to manipulate things, and in her nerves, it appears she can't keep her manipulations straight.
I was terrified, because (cut) I didn't know... (crying) I... I didn't know what to do anymore.
And so what ended up happening was they said they....they went.... take me to jail, and I'm....and because of all this SMS, because....because of all this confusion, they kept saying, "You sent this thing to Patrick. We know that you left the house. We know." I just said his name. It wasn't because I was trying to say anything. I just said it because they were… (unnn)
Does any of this make sense above? Why doesn't she complete her thoughts?
After that......at a certain point, I asked if I should have had a lawyer. And they said that it would have been worse for me.
I get the feeling Amanda doesn't feel like her plea is working, and so she throws this statement out--that she didn't have a lawyer--hoping to get understanding. Why isn't she telling us what she knows to be true? Instead, she is just whining, without saying much of anything valuable or supportive of her case.
So they asked me to make declarations about what I remembered, but I told that I didn't remember anything like this....because I was confused. What I remembered was different from what they were asking me to say.
They asked me for details, and I didn't have details to give (cut) them, so they just asked me questions that I just responded as - (and yeah)
Why doesn't she give us specifics? They said "blah, blah, blah", I said "blah, blah, blah". Why does she stop when it comes to her again? Why is there another incomplete thought?
From...I was stressed, so what I.... what, in that moment that I was trying to think of something else....my memories of just random events, of seeing Patrick, for instance, one night, or…, ugh...(sigh)
Another incomplete thought, again. It sure appears that Amanda has no memories from that night of her own, doesn't it? Worse, I find it extremely strange that she pointed the finger at a black man, when in fact, it was another black man, Rudy Guede, who was ultimately found to have taken part in the murder. What are the odds? I'm curious what the black population is in Italy and in Perugia? The lower the population, the more unusual this looks. Often when people are deceptive, there is a grain of truth in their lie.
I wrote these memorials that everyone's putting so much pressure on...for... only because I wanted to express the fact that I was confused. I felt like no one was listening to me anymore, and so I wrote these to express the fact that I didn't...I ....I didn't ....I wasn't for sure about anything anymore.
(sigh)
I want to stress the fact.... that... I'm innocent. Meredith was my friend, and I could never have hurt her. I'm not the person that the prosecutor says I am. And that's all I want to say. Thank you.
I am very disappointed by this statement. I think the best defense of anything is to say the truth, but we don't hear the truth. We don't hear Amanda give us any events or timelines. She doesn't give us anything of substance. Instead, she whines like a child. Worse, her crying, which is notable in the middle of her statement, amazingly disappears towards the end. And when she says, "I want to stress the fact that I am innocent," you would think the tears would really be flowing, but amazingly, they are totally absent. Gone. It's weird.
I don't know what happened that night in Perugia. I don't know what happened to Amanda that night, but I am not buying her story now, after she has had a year to gather herself and her memories. If this is the best she can do, it looks awful for her. Quite frankly, I think she and her Italian boyfriend were smoking cannabis, and perhaps used other drugs, and her memory from that night is so foggy, she doesn't know what the truth is herself. That doesn't bode well when a murder occurred, because how can she prove that she knew what was going on when she was out of her mind? Her only option at that point would be to build the best supporting evidence to support the truth, but she hasn't done that, either.
I am haunted by the fact in early interviews, she said that she was in the house, and that she heard screams, but covered her ears. The fact that she claimed, at one point to hear screams, yet said she covered her ears, if this is true, is indicative she knew what was going on but turned her back on Meredith. It's just chilling.
On 48 Hours, they spend a fair amount of time discussing the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, and his troubled past. Mignini definitely seems over-the-top in his approach. I don't doubt Doug Preston's story at all. I believe him. I believe that Mignini did go after him and cause him an unfair nightmare. However, that doesn't support one argument: Even if the prosecutor is biased, and bases his beliefs on fantasy rather than fact, innocent and guilty people will still come before him. Not all people who go before Mignini will be innocent, even if he is unable to determine fact from fiction. Hence, just because Mignini says and does strange things, it doesn't absolve Amanda of any wrongdoing, or the potential that she did something wrong.
Could Amanda have been led to create a false confession? Absolutely. We need to look at this seriously. The potential exists, but so far, after more than two years, Amanda has yet been able to give us a clear account of what happened to her that night. Nothing she says, to date, seems to add up. After one year and now two years, you would think the truth would be a lot more clear for her now, and she could articulate what truly happened to her, like Preston did when he recounted his story on another 48 Hours episode. It would make sense for someone who is honest, but how about someone who is not?
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Read moreI do not see this as a smile. To me, Huckaby is trying to hold back her emotions and trying not to break into a cry. She is notably pulling up her lower lip and shows true indications that she is distraught here.
During the footage above, her chin quivers. I don't know if it is my mirror neurons, but I get the feeling she is nauseated at this point, perhaps from her emotions. She is breathing heavily. She closes her eyes slowly, which is often an indication that the person can't believe what they are experiencing. When the judge talks about rape, she truly is bothered by it. I wonder if she has cried herself dry. I do not see any cold, callous emotions at this point.
A mother raping a child seems so strange to me. It is highly unusual. I have wondered how police would prove she was the rapist? Could they have found the object used in the rape, which has Huckaby's DNA and Cantu's DNA all over it? Would they have been able to run a DNA test already on it? I just wonder, if Cantu was raped, could she have been raped earlier by someone else?
Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist and chairman of The Forensic Panel, told "Good Morning America" today that the arrest of a woman in a murder such as Sandra's is "really strange and peculiar."
"There's more to the story," he said. "And instinct tells me to sit back and let the case come to all of us."
I tend to feel like Welner does, so I will be curiously watching this case unfold, too.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Several of you have emailed me stating that you want me to review the Anthony depositions from this past week. Please know that this general request is very broad and time consuming, and in light of that, I will consider smaller and more specific requests, but at this time, I don't think it would benefit anyone if I watched the entire deposition.
Read moreIf you have interest in this, please provide me with time markers, video links and tell me briefly about the segment you are interested in. It shows me that you are truly interested in my opinion. Many times when I ask people for this information, they don't respond, which leads me to believe they aren't that interested in the topic. And if people aren't interested, I don't see the value for me to invest my time. Providing me with specifics to your questions, I think is a fair trade for my time and insight, and a great mutual and beneficial relationship for both of us.
Remember, I don't give general personality reviews. People change constantly and I can't say anything across the board about a person. I can only tell you what I see with regard to specific content.
People also seem to be shy to use my topic suggestion tool here. Can I ask why? It makes my life so much easier to have all suggestions in one centralized place. Don't be shy, please! And if I move one aspect of a case off the main page, it doesn't mean you can't suggest it again in a slightly different variation. I'm happy to have suggestions! Thanks.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Breaking news: A jury finds Phil Spector guilty of second degree murder in his second trial. His first trial ended in a hung jury (10-2 to convict) back in 2007.
1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
You can read my thoughts on Phil Spector, written during the first jury deliberation here.
Dateline NBC said in September of 2007, "...no Hollywood jury has ever found a major celebrity guilty of murder."
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Amanda Knox's story was profiled on 48 Hours Saturday night. Did you see it? They played an audio clip of Knox talking. You can hear it here. What do you think of it?
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Pastor Clifford "Lane" Lawless' granddaughter, Melissa Huckaby, 27, was arrested this morning on suspicion of kidnapping and murdering little Sandra Cantu. Huckaby lived in the same trailer park as her grandparents and little Sandra Cantu. Some reports say they actually lived together. I don't know which is true.
This really makes a strong link to the behaviors that Lawless displayed in the video the other day. I think there is a strong chance he either knows what happened to Sandra, or worse, he was in some way involved. It would explain his odd behavior, and despondence.
You can read more here. How tragic. I can only imagine Connie is absolutely stunned. I can say one thing for sure, she had no idea about anything.
If there are any videos of Huckaby talking about this the last few days, please post links below and I will look at them and share my thoughts with you. * Thanks, Deanna, for the update this morning.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Doug Grant and his wife Hilary were featured on ABC's 20/20 last Friday night (You can watch the show here). Doug was put on trial for the murder of his 2nd wife, Faylene Eves Grant, who supposedly drowned in the couple's bathtub in 2001. Doug was just convicted of manslaughter this month, and he will be sentenced in a couple of weeks.
Faylene's daughter, Jenna Stradling, from her first marriage believes Doug killed her mother, and held her head under water. She claims she heard her mom that fateful day calling out for help. Others wonder if Faylene wanted to commit suicide.
In this poll, as I am writing, 15% of people believe Doug's story that Faylene accidentally drowned in the tub while he was asleep, 65% do not believe Doug, and 19% of people are undecided.
Read moreWhen I watched Doug and Hilary speak on 20/20, both of them raise my eyebrows and cause me concern. Here are some of my thoughts as I watched the show:
Why didn't Doug call 911 when he found Faylene? Instead he called his friend, Chad White, a physicians assistant. Why would he do that? It makes absolutely no sense.
Doug said about his call to Chad, "I called Chad. 'You gotta come. Take the prescriptions. I....(unknown) found her in the tub, you gotta come. I'm scared.'" Does Doug say "They found her in the tub"? The word he says before "found her" is really baffling me, and I can't quite make it out. He also seems to be struggling with pronouns here which is a red flag. Notice he doesn't say who should take the prescriptions? Why? Why do the prescriptions even enter into his mind at this point? If Doug was telling Chad to "take the prescriptions", why would he be saying that? This is very odd. Each of these elements are red flags for me.
Chad White in his 911 call to police said that Doug was afraid to call 911. Does that make any sense if this was an "accident"? If it was a premeditated murder, would it make sense?
Doug and his ex-wife, Faylene, went on a business trip to settle a company lawsuit for Doug's company. It was during this trip that Doug and Faylene talked of reconciliation yet Doug tells us how he was only weeks away from asking Hilary to marry him. Does this make any sense? Why would he consider a reconciliation if he is in love with another woman?
Jay Schadler says to Hilary, "It must have come as a blow to you" to hear about the talks of reconciliation. Hilary says, "I felt like, you know, Doug told me he had to work out his feelings, but I still felt like Doug and I would be together." Is this how you would respond if your boyfriend just got back from a business trip with his ex-wife, and he told you they talked of reconciliation? Hilary's response really raises my eyebrows. It doesn't make sense. I'm just not buying it.
Hilary remembers when Doug told her it was over. It was just after they had spent an intimate night together. "He came out of the bathroom, and I was standing there, and I said, 'It's over, isn't?' and he said 'It's over,'" said Hilary. The entire time she recollects what should be a horrible memory for her, she is smiling. This give me the complete chills!! Why is she smiling?? Wouldn't this conversation be a bad memory?
Emotions and memories are intertwined and Hilary doesn't seem to be feeling the emotions you would expect for a woman who is being rejected. She seems much too positive. Alarm bells are going off in my head. Was she somehow in on some plan with Doug to get rid of Faylene? I can't help but wonder this, time and time again.
When Faylene tells Doug that she had this revelation that she and Doug are supposed to be together, Doug tells us he told Faylene that he was just intimate with Hilary, and according to Doug, Faylene's simply says, "That's interesting. All I can tell you is that I've been told at the San Diego temple...." Does that even seem plausible? Doug seems to make Faylene out to be a complete idiot, who has no emotions and is completely able to overlook that Doug just slept with another woman. I'm not buying it.
When Hilary recounts her story about hearing that Doug and Faylene got remarried, she tries to act surprised, but it doesn't sit right with me. She is smirking through it all. Why? Why wasn't she truly surprised? Her emotional memories are not matching her story, which is a huge red flag for me, again.
Faylene at one point writes, "I must have faith in Doug's vision." I think this is powerful. Whose vision was Faylene following? Her vision or Doug's vision?
In one letter that Faylene wrote, it has the word "I" underlined in multiple places. This is very strange and notable (a reader pointed this out in the comment section). Most people don't underline "I", however if someone else wrote it, they might to emphasize it. Have you ever written a letter, and emphasizes "I" with an underscore? This is a huge red flag for me.
When Hilary reads that letter, her "cry" jumps out at me. There are no tears. Nothing about Hilary feels genuine.
When Faylene believes that she is going to die, and she writes to Hilary that she wants Hilary to be with Doug, she writes"Hilary, only you can know between Heavenly Father and yourself if it is heavenly father's will for you to be with Doug & to be part of our eternal family." How do we know that she means marriage by this? How do we know that this is Faylene's Doug, Doug Grant? Could Hilary have introduced another character with the name Doug to Faylene as a part of a bigger scheme? I'd have to read the diaries and journals to see. Of course, Faylene could have simply been brainwashed. She has the personality and predisposition for someone who succumbs to brainwashing.
I find it odd how Faylene wrote "...whoever this guy is that you are dating..." If Hilary and Faylene are close, why wouldn't Hilary tell Faylene his name?
Also nowhere in that letter does Faylene talk about her Doug and Hilary raising her children as a family, nor does she use the term marriage. It's oddly missing. You would think she would have written this letter to Doug and Hilary, wouldn't you, if she wanted them to be together? Perhaps she only wanted Hilary to raise her children and be a "mom" for them should something happen to her. Then again, she could have been brainwashed. You can rule that out.
I don't believe Faylene could fall of a 60-foot cliff and still be standing, or would be able to get up and walk away. That's flat out outrageous to me and a huge red flag.
Schadler says, "If she did fall, did you push her?" Notice Doug smiles, and laughs and then very controllingly stops himself and softly says, "No". All of these behaviors are notably odd and out of place for me and they are blaring red flags for me as well.
Doug insists he made a 911 call, but there is no record of it. It's absolute nonsense. Chad White further supports that Doug didn't want to call 911 either because he was "afraid".
And how ironic is it that just three weeks after Faylene dies that Doug and Hilary marry? Clearly, Doug wanted to be with Hilary.
I can't help but wonder if Doug stood a financial gain by eliminating Faylene. , I suspect Doug confuses a lot of people because the tears stream down his face, but he could have been crying because he was worried about loosing his freedom, as his trial date was looming. At times, Doug's tears seem genuine, such as when he looks at Hilary, but other times, I wonder if they are manufactured by thinking about how he would cope if he was convicted and lost everything, instead of truly feeling empathy for Faylene.
Faylene was deeply religious and believed in revelations. This tells us she was very open to suggestions, and had the personality which was highly susceptible to brainwashing, and I wouldn't put it past someone like Hilary or Doug to do it to her for money. Not for an instant. I certainly don't trust either one of them.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Disclaimer:All data and information provided on this site is for
informational purposes only. Eyes for Lies Blog makes no representations as to
accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information
on this site & will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in
this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its
display or use. This is a blog and expresses opinions of the author. Just
because Eyes for Lies does not believe someone does not mean they are (a)
lying, or (b) a liar. All information is provided on an as-is basis. Eyes for Lies does not take
any responsibility for comments published by its readers. Readers publish comments at their own risk.
By reading this blog, you agree to the terms expressed
in this link.
Copyright
Notice 2004-2011
The content of this blog cannot in any way be reproduced, replicated, copied,
duplicated or performed in any manner without express written permission from
Eyes for Lies. You don't want to get caught in a lie, do you? Ask first.
